UJK Parf Guide Mark II and loose fitting dogs
- Thread starter wriv
- Start date
seturner said:
Operating your drill without any support on the jig is not a good thing to do. By placing you left hand firmly on the jig not only stabilizes the jig but will stabilize your upper body. Forstner bits were designed for use in a drill press and can be difficult to steady without one, but since we are using it free hand more or less, we need a firm grip on it. Let it score the surface lightly first then apply downward pressure. Also this is a an eco system and using the dogs designed by the system maker is crucial in my opinion. UJK also make the Super Parf dogs that can be locked into the holes.
I purchased the Parf MKII about a year ago and had the exact opposite issue. I wasn't able to use the kit until my bench was complete which was about 3 months ago. I was blown away by the accuracy of the rules and the 3mm pins. I went through and drilled all the holes I could until I had to use the 20mm dogs to position the jig. Once I started trying the 20mm pins none of my holes were large enough to accept the dogs. I used multiple different brand calipers and proved that my bit had a diameter of 19.92mm which was too much under spec therefore wouldn't accept dogs that were 19.95mm to 19.98mm. I was able to get the reamer and was also sent a new cutter.
Reaming out all my holes was an absolute nightmare. I had to keep a cup of ice cold water and cool the reamer after every hole otherwise the hole would eventually be slightly oversized due to the expansion of the steel with the heat. I eventually finished and the holes ended up dead on. Once the new bit arrived it was also dead on!!
Unfortunately your holes sound slightly oversized therefore my experience doesn't help at all. I will say that your drilling technique is super important. Peter Parfit has a video showing the technique for drilling. I would drill the holes using the pecking technique making sure that your chips are constantly being cleared out. I'm shocked that the new bit didn't fix the issue. Use a set of calipers and measure the outside diameter of the bit right at the spurs. What's the diameter?
I also would recommend trying out some "close fit" dogs from TSO. These dogs are at least 19.98 to 19.99mm. I typically use these when I'm needing to be super accurate fro crosscuts.
Reaming out all my holes was an absolute nightmare. I had to keep a cup of ice cold water and cool the reamer after every hole otherwise the hole would eventually be slightly oversized due to the expansion of the steel with the heat. I eventually finished and the holes ended up dead on. Once the new bit arrived it was also dead on!!
Unfortunately your holes sound slightly oversized therefore my experience doesn't help at all. I will say that your drilling technique is super important. Peter Parfit has a video showing the technique for drilling. I would drill the holes using the pecking technique making sure that your chips are constantly being cleared out. I'm shocked that the new bit didn't fix the issue. Use a set of calipers and measure the outside diameter of the bit right at the spurs. What's the diameter?
I also would recommend trying out some "close fit" dogs from TSO. These dogs are at least 19.98 to 19.99mm. I typically use these when I'm needing to be super accurate fro crosscuts.
On occasion I read about the PARF guide system and to be honest, I don't get it.
The only thing I ever wanted was a template with 1.00" diameter holes appropriately placed for a MFT top. It need not cover the entire top; 4 rows would be enough. And then it could be shifted.
Used with a router and 1.00" O.D. template guide (7/8" I.D.) it would accommodate a 0.750" diameter router bit. The only accessory needed would be two bench dogs with 3/4" at one end and 1" at the other for indexing to the next station.
It would be made from 1/4" hardboard or any other dimensionally stable sheet good. It certainly could be sold for the price of a PARF system, and it would be easier to use and should be as accurate as the CNC that made the template.
If there is something I am missing, let me know. But PARF is starting to look like a hobby to me.
The only thing I ever wanted was a template with 1.00" diameter holes appropriately placed for a MFT top. It need not cover the entire top; 4 rows would be enough. And then it could be shifted.
Used with a router and 1.00" O.D. template guide (7/8" I.D.) it would accommodate a 0.750" diameter router bit. The only accessory needed would be two bench dogs with 3/4" at one end and 1" at the other for indexing to the next station.
It would be made from 1/4" hardboard or any other dimensionally stable sheet good. It certainly could be sold for the price of a PARF system, and it would be easier to use and should be as accurate as the CNC that made the template.
If there is something I am missing, let me know. But PARF is starting to look like a hobby to me.
mino
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,984
Parf guide system is about replacing a need for a quality CNC and a need to long-distance ship heavy/big pieces of MDF or plywood if you NEED/WANT an MFT-class accuracy and MTF-compatible hole pattern.Packard said:
It makes sense for people who do not have (easy) access to a CNC shop, need to drill holes to existing table etc. using locally-available materials.
If none of these is a killer feature, it makes little sense to go Parf guide. If you just need the accuracy and have access to a CNC, go for it. If you have the money and MFT fits your bill size-wise, go for it and optionally use it as a template. If you do not need the accuracy, but want compatibility, just use the LR32 method. If you need neither, just mark your holes and route or drill them.
Ref it issues of folks. IMO the problem here is that Peter P make is look on his videos as if it was easy to make accurate holes. Oh yeah, compared to free-hand it is dead-easy. But that is STILL a skill/art.
IMO the Parf guide system should include a (knowingly) slightly smaller bit and the reamer. That is how engineers make accurate holes for centuries.
Ref reamer heating up: You need to use it slowly - as in hand-speed-slowly.
Overall IMO PGS II is a nice piece of engineering for allowing a hobby use to make a custom MFT-style furniture "on the cheap and compact". But it is no alternative to buying an MFT or having the slab made on a quality CNC. It is another option with its own limitations and requirements.
Roachmill
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 325
I'd add that CNC cut templates invariably lead to very minor inconsistencies (due to variances between bushing sizes and template holes, router bit being a hair off centred etc.) in the final layout of holes. While it may go unnoticed you will certainly come across it when you use accessories made to attach to the top using multiple dog holes e.g. TSO squares and Parf fences [big grin]
MikeGE
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2019
- Messages
- 670
mino said:
The kit should also come with the vacuum attachment, since it fits nicely in the PGS II box. I used the reamer on a few holes, but did it by hand. I only had to clean out the hard wax oil residue that I missed when I finished my workbench top.
mino said:
In my case, the PGS II was the only alternative for my workbench. After talking to several shops within 50 kilometers of me that had a CNC table, only one had a table large enough for the 1x2 meter top and he wanted €350 to cut the holes. Unfortunately, he would not guarantee the accuracy of the holes or grid pattern over the 2-meter length because of his machine's gantry. The owner was familiar with the MFT tops and routinely made smaller tops from MDF and Valchromat for his commercial customers. He explained his CNC machine used a small router bit to make the 20mm holes instead of a 20mm cutter because he couldn't find 20mm cutters that would work in his CNC router and produce quality holes. For small tables, similar to the Festool MFT/3, there aren't any problems, but over longer distances, errors can creep in because of the gantry of his machine. I didn't want to risk a full sheet of Valchromat on a table top that might not be accurate.
mino said:
I used a pegboard as template. I used a Vix bit to drill the pilot holes and a 3/4" augur point bit in a bushing to drill the holes. I made three tops. On each one hole was out of alignment. I don't know how the discrepancy crept in. I think a CNC cut template with a router bushing and a 3/4" carbide bit would eliminate that discrepancy.
For now, I simply outlined the offending hole with a magic marker and I don't use that hole for squaring up purposes. The rest seem to be right on the mark. Checking the edge to edge distance with a vernier caliper show that the holes are within 0.005" for the rest of them.
It could be that the peg board had one hole out of alignment; that the pegboard shifted (the 2nd and 3rd were screwed down, so unlikely), the vix bit did not center the pilot hole or the auger point did not center the drill bit. The bushing was just to maintain a vertical hole and the bushing was 0.750" deep. The holes are satisfactory in that regard.
There is just the one outlier on each table top. Not sure if it was operator error or something wrong with the process.
Well, Woodpeckers already made one and i know there are a few more out there if that is what you want.https://www.woodpeck.com/hole-boring-jig-2019.htmlPackard said:
Attachments
squall_line
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2021
- Messages
- 2,921
Packard said:
A few guesses:
Drill (Parf) vs. Router (WP)
Completeness of kits?
Storage space?
Overall visibility and control of mind space - Once you get a few google searches into "Replacement MFT", you find references to "The Parf System" and "Parf Tables". I don't come across much discussion about "Woodpecker MFTs". Peter's videos and subscribers also contribute to this to a certain extent.
These are all SWAGs, though. YMMV (or YKMV).
mino
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,984
Ref. CNC, for anyone thinking about it, you need a quality CNC to reach the original MFT/3 precision. A lower end woodworking CNC usually cannot match the MFT/3 accuracy.
The key to PGS accuracy limits being so good is that errors are mostly not cumulative thanks to the long rules and multiple reference points. With templates smaller than, say, 1/2 the MFT size, you end up with significant cumulative errors. These can cancel each other if you are lucky, or add up...
If PGS is seen as overkill cost/accuracy-wise, the next best option is to use the LR32 approach as per Peter Millard and other videos. Much better to invest in LR32 which can be used for actual project work too in place of a one-trick pony like the smaller templates.
The PGS is fundamentally more accurate than these small templates but it requires good secondary tools, good technique, good bits and good material. None of which are guaranteed/easy.Packard said:
The key to PGS accuracy limits being so good is that errors are mostly not cumulative thanks to the long rules and multiple reference points. With templates smaller than, say, 1/2 the MFT size, you end up with significant cumulative errors. These can cancel each other if you are lucky, or add up...
If PGS is seen as overkill cost/accuracy-wise, the next best option is to use the LR32 approach as per Peter Millard and other videos. Much better to invest in LR32 which can be used for actual project work too in place of a one-trick pony like the smaller templates.
Cheese
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2015
- Messages
- 12,501
Packard said:
The bottom line is the WP product is extremely accurate for dog placement. Its downfall is hole concentricity because it's using a 1/2" diameter router bit to machine a 20 mm diameter hole. That may be fine if you're using MDF or a CNC but I used 18 mm ply and the holes were slow to machine and erratic in size when routed by hand.
My work-around was to fabricate a special bushing that allowed me to use the WP template fitted to an OF 1400 using a 20 mm Festool router bit which resulted in a straight plunge cut.
Here's the thread.
https://www.festoolownersgroup.com/other-tools-accessories/mft-hole-jigs/msg586456/#msg586456
Packard said:
Maybe you just answered your own question "why is it taking a back seat to the Parf System". When we look at reviews on tools aren't we looking for the 4 to 5 star approval ratings? I think one of the important keys to a decision would be to watch the instructional videos made by its inventor Peter Parfitt first. Then if it makes no sense to you of its worth then go for something else but most of us that purchased this system and achieved satisfying and accurate results probably would feel unjustified to send you to something else that we obviously chose not to go with.
I for one after using mine recommended one to my son who lives away, which i wouldn't do if it didn't work for me.
Similar threads
